The Beatles vs The Stones

[dakota]

Hey look, I enjoy the Stones music about as much as the next guy. But over the years I've encountered people that say the Stones are better.
If these folks say this simply 'cause they prefer their style more than the Beatles or feel that the Stones are better in concert, well then that's fine. The part where they'll lose the argument is when one compares the level of creativity, the singing ability, the prolific songwriting.

In my opinion even Ringo sings as good as Mick Jagger....maybe?.

Charlie Watts is a better time keeper, but Ringos drumming is more interesting.

Brian Jones had about as much music talent as Mal Evans.
Brain Jones was dead weight in that band.

[Steve-o]

Well--for me, the most annoying thing about the Stones is how they play their old stuff VERY fast live, like it doesn't mean anything to them. Compare that to the care that Macca gives the presentation of HIS oldies, and it just makes those geezers look pathetic. I like the old stuff, but have they really had a song worth listening to since like 1980? I dont even think that they rate any comparison if you go back to the 60's---compare them to others, but NEVER the Beatles.

[Steve-o]

Airdog said it best a few weeks back:

Posted - 05/11/2002 : 23:34:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much like clapton, the stones seem to rush through all their classics,as if playing them faster will make up for any real emotion...
I think Steve Lawrence and Idi Amin take the same approach.






Edited by - stevew628 on 05/31/2002 16:50:34

[DrRobert]

I love the Stones, very very much, but I would not waste my time comparing them to the beatles. They're not in the same league; they're possibly the greatest party band of all time, and they were contemporaries of the beatles. That's about it. This rivalry stuff was a marketing ploy. If you guys have noticed more and more we get removed from the 60's, this mention of the beatles vs the stones is going away. The only artist that is mentioned as being in the same league as the beatles, albeit for completely different reasons, is Bob Dylan.
Incidentally, the stones 60's albums were excellent and interesting as well; after the beatles broke up, my opinion is that the stones stopped experimenting/copying and since 1973 all their albums pretty much sound the same and are average at best (exception Some Girls).

[Ram1]

There's no comparison. The Beatles culturally changed Western civilization. No other band or artist even comes close. Even more so than Pelvis. The Stones are great, sure. And I admire the fact that Mick still runs around the stage like he was 20. But as for their influence, they don't hold a candle to the Lads from Liverpool. And as Doc Robert said, this whole "feud" thing in the 60s was manufactured by the media. If anything, The Stones lifted off The Beatles more than anything. Take a look at 'Their Satanic Majesties Request.' That's a Sgt. Pepper rip off plain and simple!

[skyjude]

You're right - The Beatles vs Stones thing was purely media provoked and they were actually reasonable friends (don't forget The Beatles actually offered them their first real hit, I Wanna Be Your Man, to help them get going). Although people often argue the difference between the two groups it's really an unrealistic comparison. I love The Stones and their music but it's not really lyrical pop and as Ram1 said they didn't really innovate music like The Fab Four. The real comparisons to The Beatles are the Beach Boys for their great tunes and The Kinks for their awesome lyrics but The Beatles had both and huge quantities of it. It's the sheer volume of work they produced in such a short time that really astounds me especially compared to groups of today who either vanish after one album or wait 3 years between each release.

[dakota]

Well said Skyjude!

[Ram1]

Yeah, I agree with you there, Jude. And not just for The Beatles. In the 60s and 70s, bands came out with albums every single year, (sometimes twice in a year.) Nowadays, the TOP bands have ATLEAST a two year break in between albums, and sometimes 3 or 4 years. Man, if The Beatles, (or any 60s group for that matter), waited 3 YEARS in between an album, they'd be LOOOOOOOONG forgotten about. I think a lot of groups today are just plain lazy. They put out an album once every 2 1/2...3 years, and then they complain about it. ("Oh man, we need a break. We released the album, and then had to TOUR behind it! We're taking a 2 year hiatus.) GIVE ME A FREAKIN' BREAK MAN!! Bands like The Beatles, Stones, Doors, etc...they put out albums every year, toured, did publicity too, and you didn't hear them whining!! I'm convinced, the bands of yesterday were harder workers, plain and simple. A lot of today's musicians just wanna make their million bucks and go chill in their mansions for a couple years until their record company comes a'knockin saying they need to record another album. Give me a break.



Edited by - Ram1 on 06/01/2002 18:58:31

[Ram1]

By the way, even though Macca usually has about a 4 year gap in between new studio albums these days, I exclude him from the group because the man has paid his dues for decades! (And also already proven himself over 30 years ago.)

[Liam OSM]

Damn straight Ram1!

Certainly, you need to do an album every year for about five years to have a chance of cementing your place in history. And you need to make music with a human edge to it - none of this synthesised ***censored*** that is dominating the charts (pardon my French) - ugh! The people who are legends now are the people who have worked hard to get there! How much hard work do people put in nowadays? Not a lot . . .

The difference between genius and insanity is merely the difference between success and failure.